ABBVIE INC: "Morgan" Suit Consolidated in Androgel Products MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The lawsuit entitled Morgan v. Abbvie, Inc., et al., Case No.2:14-cv-01432, was transferred from the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of Louisiana to the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). TheIllinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05002 tothe proceeding.

According to the MDL Order, on January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food andDrug Administration announced that it was "investigating the riskof stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approvedtestosterone products." The Plaintiffs filed the Androgel-relatedactions in the wake of this announcement. All actions involve thePlaintiffs or their survivors, who used one or more testosteronereplacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent's)use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include heartattack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. Alltestosterone replacement therapy actions will share factualquestions regarding general causation and the background scienceregarding the role of testosterone in the aging body (possiblyincluding examination of the recent studies that prompted the FDAinvestigation), as well as involve common regulatory issues inlight of the FDA's announcement and subsequent actions, if any.

ANDROGEL(R) is a form of testosterone replacement therapy,indicated for the treatment and prevention of low testosteronelevels caused by hypogonadism. Hypogonadism is a specificcondition of the sex glands which, in men, may result in thediminished production or nonproduction of testosterone.

AMERICAN PENSION: Removed "Oliver" Suit to Utah District Court--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Oliver v. American PensionServices, et al., Case No. 140407746, was removed from the 3rdDistrict Court, Salt Lake County, to the U.S. District Court forthe District of Utah (Central). The District Court Clerk assignedCase No. 2:14-cv-00487-DB to the proceeding.

AMERICAN REALTY: Being Sold to Ventas for Too Little, Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reported that directors are sellingAmerican Realty Capital Healthcare too cheaply through an unfairprocess to Ventas Inc., for $11.33 a share or $2.6 billion,shareholders claim in New York County Court in Manhattan.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Extra Water in Beer--------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reportedthat even if Anheuser-Busch intentionally waters down its beers,its compliance with federal regulations shields it from civillitigation, a federal judge ruled.

"If the perceived injustice at issue in this case is as importantto plaintiffs as they have suggested through the course of thislitigation, they can make their concerns known to [federalregulators] and lobby for changes in the regulation," U.S.District Judge Donald Nugent wrote, dismissing multidistrictlitigation consolidated from class actions filed across thecountry.

"Anheuser-Busch possesses technology that allows it to preciselyidentify and control the alcohol content of its malt beverages towithin 'hundredths of one percent (0.01%),'" but that the company"routinely and intentionally adds extra water to its finishedproduct to produce malt beverages that 'consistently havesignificantly lower alcohol content than the percentages displayedon its labels,'" the complaint states.

Nugent dismissed the action, however, after focusing on Section7.71(c) of the FAAA, which states: "For malt beverages containing0.5 percent or more of alcohol by volume, a tolerance of 0.3percent will be permitted, either above or below the statedpercentage of alcohol."

Anheuser-Busch contends -- and the plaintiffs never disputed --that its products are within the 0.3 percent articulated in theFAAA, the court found. The claims thus turned on any profitsgained from the alleged knowing misrepresentation of alcoholcontent on beer labels.

"The problem is that the regulation itself does not distinguishbetween intentional and unintentional variances from the statedpercentage," Nugent wrote. "Neither does it identify anycircumstances or exceptions that would preclude application of the0.3 percent tolerance for any malt beverages containing more than0.5 percent alcohol by volume. There is no stated or referencedexception based on intent, actual knowledge, precision ofavailable measuring technology, or the size and profitability ofthe manufacturer."

Nugent shot down demands to use the court's "interpretive andequitable powers to create an exception to the tolerance when amisstatement of alcohol content, no matter the degree, is knowingor intentional."

"A court cannot add language to a regulation that is unambiguouson its face, nor can it import or manufacture exceptions that werenot included by the enacting agency," he wrote.

"If a regulation or piece of legislation is not desirable, doesnot match the will of the citizens, or was, for any other reason,improvidently enacted or articulated, the legislative body has thepower to revoke it or to modify it to conform more specifically totheir intents and purposes," the judge added. "It is not thecourt's role to presume their collective intention, second guesstheir policy choices, or save them from their own mistakes ormisstatements."

Nugent also rejected claims that the allegedly watered-down beerviolates the governing principles of the Alcohol and Tobacco Taxand Trade Bureau, formerly known as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobaccoand Firearms, to prevent any misleading or false information onconsumer labels.

"Section 7.71(c) is easily reconciled with the FAAA/TTBimplementing statutes and regulations, if we simply accept thatthe TTB has reasonably determined that a stated alcohol contentaccurate to within a 0.3 percent in either direction providesadequate information to identify the nature and quality of theproduct, and that any variation within that range is notsignificant enough to be considered misleading and/or deceptive,"Nugent wrote, abbreviating the bureau's name.

Likewise the plaintiffs failed to show that the court should notafford the word "tolerance" its ordinary meaning, insteadconsidering it as "a term of art that allows only 'unintentionaldeviations' from the goal of absolute accuracy."

"Plaintiffs have offered no legal or industry specific authorityfor this proposition," Nugen wrote. "They have offered no sourcefrom the TTB or any other agency related to the regulation ofalcoholic beverages and/or labeling standards in any food orbeverage industry. They have failed to cite any definition of theword 'tolerance' in any dictionary, manual, handbook, or othersource that limits the word 'tolerance' to the acceptance of'unintentional deviations.'"

The recall involves lamps on wooden tripods, sold with black orbeige lampshades. The model numbers subject to the recall areI3609 (black lampshade) and I3610 (beige lampshade).

The internal wiring of the lamp is faulty and may pose a risk ofelectrical shock to users. The product does not meet Canadianelectrical standards and is therefore not authorized to bear theUL Certification Mark.

Neither Attitudes Import nor Health Canada has received anyreports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use ofthis product.

Approximately 33 units of the recalled product were sold invarious stores across Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from April2014 to June 2014.

Companies:

Distributor Attitudes Import Laval Quebec Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected lamps andcall Attitudes Import at 1-800-479-0199 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30p.m. Monday through Friday for a refund.

AUTOLIV INC: Has MoU to Settle US Securities Class Actions----------------------------------------------------------Autoliv, Inc. on June 27 disclosed that it has entered into amemorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of itspending US class action securities lawsuit.

Autoliv, Inc., two of its officers and one of its employees aredefendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed bythe Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis onApril 17, 2013 in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Autolivmisrepresented or failed to disclose that antitrust violations byAutoliv artificially inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock pricein violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks torecover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the allegedclass of purchasers who bought Autoliv common stock betweenOctober 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011.

Autoliv has entered into a memorandum of understanding withPlaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle to settle thelawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5million. Autoliv expects to record a net expense of approximately$4.5 million in its second quarter results. The balance of thesettlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier.

The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing oracceptance of fault by Autoliv or any of the individuals named inthe complaint. The defendants are settling to eliminate theuncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated withprotracted litigation.

The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution ofa final settlement agreement among the parties and final approvalby the court following notice to the settlement class and afairness hearing.

About Autoliv

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com-- develops and manufactures automotive safety systems for all major automotivemanufacturers in the world. Together with its joint ventures,Autoliv has more than 80 facilities with over 56,000 employees in29 countries. In addition, the Company has ten technical centersin nine countries around the world, with 21 test tracks, more thanany other automotive safety supplier. Sales in 2013 amounted toUS $8.8 billion. The Company's shares are listed on the New YorkStock Exchange and its Swedish Depository Receipts on the OMXNordic Exchange in Stockholm (ALIV sdb).

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Approval of Accord in LSI Purchase Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder suit against AvagoTechnologies Limited over its acquisition of LSI filed a motionfor final approval of a proposed settlement, according to Avago'sJune 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2014.

Fifteen purported class action complaints have been filed byalleged stockholders of LSI against the company. Eight of thoselawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and theother seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the Stateof California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the sameputative class as the Delaware actions (the "California Actions").On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered anorder consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action (the"Delaware Action"). These actions generally allege that thecompany aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by themembers of LSI's board of directors in connection with the mergerbecause the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the mergerconsideration is unfair and certain other terms of the mergeragreement are unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek toenjoin the merger, or in the event that an injunction is notentered and the merger closes, to rescind the merger or obtainunspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached anagreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a classwide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that waspresented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. OnMarch 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered intoa stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution ofthe Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in theDelaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposedsettlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with theDelaware Court of Chancery.

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Certifies Overtime Suit as Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------City News Service reports that a lawsuit over overtime pay, led byappraisers against Bank of America, has been certified as a classaction case by a federal judge in Santa Ana, an attorneyrepresenting the plaintiffs said on July 1.

About 350 appraisers across the country will be part of the class,including about 185 from California, according to attorneyBryan Schwartz, who filed the lawsuit in April 2013 on behalf ofTerry Boyd, a former appraiser for Bank of America and its in-house appraisal firm, Landsafe. Mr. Boyd, who was affiliated withthe Ladera Ranch office, lives in Trabuco Canyon.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter approved certification of theclass on June 27.

Mr. Schwartz argues in the lawsuit that the appraisers should notbe classified as administrators, which would exempt them fromovertime pay, because they are not "engaged in overall strategydecisions for Bank of America," such as establishing guidelinesfor all appraisers.

The appraisers are issued formulas to determine the value ofproperty and do not have the authority to deviate, Mr. Schwartzsaid. Bank officials have claimed the appraisers are not entitledto overtime and breaks because they are company administrators orare "learned professionals," Mr. Schwartz said.

"While it involves a lot of skill and training, it's not like alawyer or a doctor, which requires a prolonged course ofspecialized instruction," Mr. Schwartz said.

Bank officials have also claimed that many of the employees workedfrom home, so no one was denying them meals and breaks, butJudge Carter noted the company has to do more to make sure theemployees get break time.

"Employers do not escape liability simply by having a formalpolicy of providing meal and rest breaks," Judge Carter said inhis ruling.

In April, a $5.8 million settlement was reached in a class-actionfederal lawsuit on overtime pay and benefits covering about 350"review appraisers," who oversee appraisers. That settlement wasfinalized, Mr. Schwartz said.

In the current case, the appraisers will seek a summary judgmentin their favor, but if that is not approved, a trial is expectedaround the middle part of next year, Mr. Schwartz said.

Mr. Schwartz filed a similar federal lawsuit against JPMorganChase in April of last year. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appealshas ordered that case to mediation.

BANKRATE INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------Bankrate, Inc. (NYSE: RATE) reached a proposed agreement, subjectto Court approval, to settle the private securities class actionpending against the Company and certain current and formerofficers of the Company, according to the company's June 10, 2014,Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay atotal of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve allclaims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwiseacquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and October 15,2012. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankratedenies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Bankrate's insurersare expected to fund at least a substantial portion of theSettlement Fund.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice tothe Class members will be sent with information regarding theallocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund andinstructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on theSettlement Fund.

BEST BUY: Removed "Restrepo" Suit to Minnesota District Court-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Restrepo, et al. v. Best Buy Co.,Inc., Case No. 27-CV-14-9955, was removed from the Hennepin CountyDistrict Court to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District ofMinnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No.0:14-cv-02603-JNE-JSM to the proceeding.

She claims that Anthem recently issued member identification cardsthat state, incorrectly, that many members are in PreferredProvider Organization plans (PPO) though they actually are inExclusive Provider Organization plans (EPO).

"In PPO plans, members have access to a huge network of Anthemproviders and the ability to obtain covered treatment from out-of-network providers," the complaint states. "Unlike PPO plans, inEPO plans, members only have access to an extremely limitednetwork of providers and no coverage for out-of-network providers.When the members provide their member identification cards toAnthem PPO providers, the providers render services believing thatthe members are in an Anthem PPO plan. As a result, membersreceive services from these providers only to have Anthemultimately deny coverage on the ground that the providers are notin-network EPO providers. Thus, Anthem has wrongfully forcedpotentially thousands of their members to pay out of pocket formedical costs."

CATERPILLAR INC: "Windy" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL----------------------------------------------------------------The lawsuit captioned Windy City Limousine LLC vs. Caterpillar, etal., Case No. 1:14-cv-04229, was transferred from the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Jersey. The NewJersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04136 to theproceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known asIn Re: Caterpillar Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products LiabilityLitigation, MDL # 2540 and Lead Case No. 1:14-cv-03722-JBS-JS.

The litigation arises out of allegations that an exhaust emissioncontrol system, called the Caterpillar Regeneration System, usedin certain model year C13 and C15 engines manufactured byCaterpillar, is defective. In the actions, the Plaintiffs allegethat buses or trucks in which these engines were installedsuffered repeated failures and fault warnings, resulting in costlyand time-consuming repairs. The plaintiffs assert claims forbreach of express and implied warranties, and all of the actionsare asserted on behalf of putative state or nationwide classes ofpurchasers or lessees of vehicles with C13 or C15 engines.

CHINA CERAMICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York-----------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on July 2 disclosed that it has filed a class actionlawsuit against China Ceramics Co., Ltd. and certain of itsofficers. The class action, filed in United States DistrictCourt, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-4997, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons orentities who purchased China Ceramics between March 30, 2012 andMay 1, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recoverdamages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federalsecurities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Ceramics securitiesduring the Class Period, you have until August 5, 2014 to ask theCourt to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy ofthe Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address, telephone number, and number of sharespurchased.

China Ceramics is a leading Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tilesused for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design inresidential and commercial buildings.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsfailed to disclose and/or materially misstated its true financialcondition. On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced that trading in ChinaCeramics was halted that day for "additional informationrequested" from the Company. On that same day, China Ceramicsannounced, among other things, that: (i) on April 30, 2014, theCompany terminated the engagement of Grant Thornton as itsprincipal independent registered public accountant; (ii) followingthe decision to terminate Grant Thornton, William L. Stulginskytendered his resignation as an independent director and Chairmanof the Audit Committee; (iii) the audit of the Company'sconsolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,2013 has not been completed; (iv) the Company is unable to timelyfile its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2013; and (v) during the preparation of its 2013financial statements the Company identified a write down of assetsfor the fourth quarter resulting from unused capacity at itsHengdali facility, which is currently estimated to be $7.5million.

On November 1, 2013, Defendant D.W. Dong abruptly resigned as aDirector of the Company and a member of the Audit Committee. Hewas replaced by Mr. Shen Cheng Liang.

On November 13, 2013, the Company announced its financial resultsfor the third quarter of 2013. In its announcement, the Companyrevealed a substantial asset write-down of property, plant andequipment.

On April 27, 2014, Mr. Stulginsky abruptly resigned as a Directorof the Company and Chairman of the Audit Committee. Thecircumstances surrounding his abrupt departure would be revealeddays later. On April 28, 2014, Defendant Su resigned as aDirector of the Company. On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced thehalt in trading of the common shares of China Ceramics. On thesame day, the Company filed a notification on Form 12b-25 with theSEC of its inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-Ffor the year ended December 31, 2013. The following day, theCompany announced the delay in the filing of its annual report forthe year ended December 31, 2013 and partially revealed thecircumstances surrounding the delay, which includes the firing ofits auditor, the hiring of a new auditing firm, and there-auditing of its prior financial statements.

The Company also disclosed that it was notified by NASDAQ of itsnon-compliance with NASDAQ's continued listing requirement due toits inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F forthe year ended December 31, 2013. In the same announcement, theCompany also revealed a substantial write down of assets in thefourth quarter of 2013.

On May 9, 2014, the Company filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, whichprovided further details regarding its firing of Grant Thorntonand the re-auditing of its prior financial statements for theyears ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

As of July 2, 2014, trading in the Company's stock remains halted,rendering the Company's stock illiquid and virtually worthless.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

The food recall warning issued on June 20, 2014 has been updatedto include additional product information. This additionalinformation was identified during the Canadian Food InspectionAgency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Choices Markets is recalling Le Moutier Goat Cheese from themarketplace because it may contain the toxin produced byStaphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume therecalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalledproduct should be thrown out or returned to the store where it waspurchased

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smellspoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is noteasily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptomsof Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, musclecramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA isconducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to therecall of other products. If other high-risk products arerecalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated FoodRecall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

Affected products: Le Moutier Goat Cheese with best before datesup to and including 2014SE19

Industry is recalling Al-Karawan brand Manna Wassalwa from themarketplace because it contains egg which is not declared on thelabel. People with an allergy to egg should not consume therecalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalledproduct should be thrown out or returned to the store where it waspurchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled productas it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a foodsafety investigation, which may lead to the recall of otherproducts. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA willnotify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

The suit says administrators performing hardware and softwareinstallations and other work often work late into the night and onweekends. They allege that CSC misclassified them as exempt fromovertime pay.

CSC settled a similar lawsuit in 2005 for $24 million, accordingto the three California law firms representing the plaintiffs inthe case, which was filed in New Haven U.S. District Court.

There are more than 100 potential members of the class, and claimsexceed $5 million, according to the suit. One of the two namedplaintiffs is Farmington resident Timothy Colby, who worked forCSC from Oct. 2011 to Feb. 2014.

A CSC spokesman said the company does not comment on pendinglitigation.

Under the February 2012 settlement agreement, Coverall pledged toassign current franchisees customer accounts, as long as they paytheir franchise fees in full. Former franchise owners willreceive $475 each and $750 toward a new franchise. Key to thesettlement is Coverall's obligation to update franchise agreementsand change its operating procedures.

Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in San Diego approvedthe settlement, which includes $994,800 in attorneys' fees.

"We conclude that the district court correctly used the lodestarmethod in gauging the fairness of the attorneys' fee award," JudgeRonald Gould wrote for the majority.

The ruling notes that the nearly $1 million award came far belowwhat the attorneys' could have recovered.

"In its analysis, the District Court noted that the case had beencontentiously litigated for over two years, and that the reportsubmitted by plaintiffs' counsel showing that over 4,500 hours hadbeen billed by six attorneys, a paralegal and a law clerk was fairand accurate," Gould wrote. "Using that number, the DistrictCourt calculated that the lodestar amount reached almost $3million. At a third of the lodestar amount, the district courtsoundly concluded that the attorneys' fees award of $994,800 wasreasonable."

The amount class members will take home is disputed, according tothe ruling, which notes that Singh has "clearly" underestimatedthe settlement value at $56,525, while the plaintiffs "maycertainly be overstating the value of the settlement at $20million."

"The District Court reasonably surmised that even if the value ofthe settlement was $4 million -- only a part of the amount claimedby plaintiffs -- the attorneys' fee award would still be withinthe normal bounds of reasonableness," Gould wrote.

In addition to cash for former franchisees, the settlement yields"significant benefits for plaintiffs," including "assignment ofcustomer accounts and pledges for programmatic changes," Gouldadded.

"The District Court elaborated that 'once franchises are assigned,franchisees will own a valuable business they can choose to sellor continue to operate."

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, sitting by designation from SanFrancisco, wrote in dissent that the trial court did not haveenough "crucial" information to make a decision about thesettlement or the award of attorneys' fees. He noted that thedeal does not specify who is eligible to receive "customeraccounts," and that the monetary relief to the class is uncertainsince unclaimed funds will revert back to Coverall.

"The case should be remanded for fuller development of therecord," Chen wrote. "I also believe this case affords this courtan opportunity to provide additional guidance to the districtcourts in their assessment of proposed class action settlements."

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cotner" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Product-----------------------------------------------------------------David Cotner v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and JohnsonServices, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02347-K(N.D. Tex., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants placeddefective medical devices, including Pinnacle Hip ReplacementSystem and the Pinnacle Cup, into the stream of interstatecommerce that was implanted in the Plaintiff.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Deal OK'd in Suit Over Botched Forfeitures----------------------------------------------------------------Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a federaljudge approved an $855,000 settlement of a class action accusingD.C. police of failing to return cash seized from suspects it thenfailed to prosecute.

Anthony Hardy and Donnell Monts brought the lawsuit in June 2009,challenging the district's "Forfeiture Statute," which allowspolice to seize all cash "allegedly related to a violation of theControlled Substances Act."

The statute also requires the mayor of Washington, D.C., to givenotice by certified mail. To retrieve their money, affectedindividuals must file a claim within 30 days. The districtmeanwhile has up to a year to file the civil forfeiture action.

Hardy said $127 in cash was taken from him after his arrest inDecember 2006, while Monts said police seized $823 in cash fromhim after his July 2006 arrest.

The district allegedly "never provided notice of forfeiture of themoney seized, nor brought a forfeiture proceeding within oneyear."

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper approved the $855,000settlement on June 20, 2014, eight years after the filing of thatlawsuit.

The deal includes $2,500 for the class representatives. Another$14,000 will go toward attorneys' expenses, while another $283,000will go toward attorney's fees. An additional $52,600 went to theClass Action Administration Inc., while $500,000 was set aside forapproved claims.

"The size of the payment pool and the percentage of class memberswho responded are on par with typical class action settlementawards," Cooper wrote. "Nothing in the course of this litigationindicates a lack of general skill or efficiency on the part ofplaintiffs' attorney. To the contrary, counsel appears to havehandled the case quite effectively."

The underlying lawsuit was filed by attorney Henry Escoto.

The case is Anthony Hardy, et al. v. District Of Columbia, CaseNo. 1:09-cv-01062 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia.

DS WATERS: "Haley" Suit Moved From Central to Northern California-----------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Arjay Haley v. DS Waters ofAmerica Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-07841, was transferred fromthe U.S. District Court for the Central District of California tothe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California(Oakland). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.4:14-cv-02996-KAW to the proceeding.

Fresh Sprout International Ltd. is recalling Fresh Sprouts brandFresh Bean Sprouts from the marketplace due to possible Salmonellacontamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalledproduct should be thrown out or returned to the store where it waspurchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiledbut can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, theelderly and people with weakened immune systems may contractserious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people mayexperience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complicationsmay include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a foodsafety investigation, which may lead to the recall of otherproducts. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA willnotify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

The food recall warning issued on June 26, 2014 has been updatedto include additional product information. This additionalinformation was identified during the Canadian Food InspectionAgency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where itwas purchased

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smellspoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is noteasily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptomsof Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, musclecramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA isconducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to therecall of other products. If other high-risk products arerecalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated FoodRecall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productsfrom the marketplace.

The food recall warning issued on June 27, 2014, has been updatedto include additional product information. This additionalinformation was identified during the Canadian Food InspectionAgency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Fromagerie Le D‚tour (2003) Inc. is recalling Sentinelle cheesefrom the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced byStaphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume therecalled product described below.

Also affected by this alert is the above product which may havebeen sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers.Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if theyhave the affected product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalledproduct should be thrown out or returned to the store where it waspurchased

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smellspoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is noteasily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptomsof Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, musclecramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA isconducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to therecall of other products. If other high-risk products arerecalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated FoodRecall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

Gagan Foods International Ltd. is recalling Shan brand LemonPickles from the marketplace because they contain mustard which isnot declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustardshould not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard do not consume the recalledproducts as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a foodsafety investigation, which may lead to the recall of otherproducts. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA willnotify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allowthe switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring iscarrying added weight or the vehicle goes off-road or is subjectedto some other jarring event. If this were to occur, engine power,power steering and power braking would be affected, increasing therisk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Thetiming of the key movement out of the run position, relative tothe activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, mayalso result in the airbags not deploying in a subsequentcollision, increasing the risk of injury.

Correction: For each key, dealers will install two key rings andmodify the key ring opening shape.

Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should beremoved from the key ring.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Deighan" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit titled Deighan v. GeneralMotors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00458, was transferred fromthe U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvaniato the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York(Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 1:14-cv-04858-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Letterio" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit styled Letterio, et al. v.General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00488, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western Districtof Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York (Foley Square). The New York District CourtClerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04857-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Salazar" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit captioned Salazar, III v.General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00362, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western Districtof Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04859-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GM is currently battling numerous lawsuits arising from allegeddeadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect isin the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible tofailure during normal driving conditions. When the ignitionswitch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on"position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, whichresults in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well asa disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled theaffected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Says Attorneys Must Focus on Due Process--------------------------------------------------------------Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports thatSouthern District Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber urged attorneysfor General Motors and for its customers suing over defectiveignition switches to attempt to agree on facts as much as possiblebefore litigating further.

The customers in In re: Motors Liquidation Co., 09-bk-50026 areseeking to hold GM liable for economic losses they suffered as aresult of cars being recalled.

Judge Gerber ruled at a hearing on July 2 that the parties shouldsubmit briefs on whether the customers were denied due process bythe 2009 approval of GM's bankruptcy sale, which absolved "new GM"from claims. He also asked for briefing on possible remedies andon whether any of the claims were against "old GM."

He said it would be premature to brief the issue of whether GM hadcommitted "fraud on the court" that could make it subject toliability despite the 2009 order. At one point, he sketched a"hypothetical" if it was shown that GM had deliberately concealedfrom the court its knowledge of the faulty switches, saying such afinding would constitute fraud on the court.

Judge Gerber said his plan was trying to hit "the sweet spotbetween fairness and getting to the right result."

Arthur Steinberg, a partner at King & Spalding who represents GM,said during the hearing that "everything flows from the proceduraldue process issue" and that if GM prevailed on that issue, theother issues would become moot.

Elihu Inselbuch -- einselbuch@capdale.com -- a member of Caplin &Drysdale, similarly said that "if this court were to decide thatissue against us, presumably we wouldn't have to reach the remedyissue."

The next status conference is set for Aug. 5.

GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Partner Discusses Class Actions-------------------------------------------------------------Benzinga reports that earlier this year Hagens Berman, thelaw firm that won a $1.6 billion class action suit against Toyotafor the company's wave of 2009-2011 recalls, was appointed interimlead counsel of the class action lawsuit against General Motors.

Mr. Carey began by describing one of the key differences betweenToyota's and General Motors' situations; that Toyota's recallsdealt with complex code that would be difficult for the averagejury to understand. The General Motors case, on the other hand,deals with "mechanical engineering that somebody with a thirdgrade education can understand."

This does not, however, mean a settlement should be reached morequickly; the 2009 bankruptcy filing could be a major complication.

Mr. Carey described the atmosphere after GM had already begunrecalling vehicles.

"No one had filed yet and that tells you a lot about the field ofthe bankruptcy," he said, particularly since lawyers typically donot sit on their hands when a situation of this nature arises.

General Motors has implied that it is not responsible for economicloss before the company filed for bankruptcy. "Now, I think therehas been so much of a firestorm beyond that point," Carey notes,"that it's going to be hard for anyone to say at some point thatGM shouldn't answer for some of the harm."

The economic loss lawsuit (i.e., lost resale value due to therecalls) will have much more of an impact on the company than thedeath and serious injury cases, according to Mr. Carey. A fewhundred people may be affected by injury, but "almost 30 millionvehicles have been recalled and it's only halfway through theyear," he said. "The previous record [of cars recalled in a year]was 10 million, held by the GM . . . I can't tell you howastounding this recall number is."

Almost every car recalled is also affected by a drop in resalevalue. This is especially true for consumers of General Motors'entry level vehicles. The Chevy Cobalt, for example, has given uproughly $1,000 of value on a $5,000 car, according to Mr. Carey.

GENZYME: Judge Dismisses Class Action on Myozyme Complaint----------------------------------------------------------Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reportedthat there is no evidence Genzyme executives intentionallydeceived shareholders about its bid to produce the orphan drugMyozyme on a larger scale, the 1st Circuit has ruled.

U.S. District Judge George O'Toole presided over the consolidatedshareholder class action against Genzyme, which took aim at aseries of errors that led to the closure of the drugmaker's plantin Allston, Mass., and seriously delayed approval by the Food andDrug Administration of a license to make its drug Myozyme on alarger scale.

Myozyme is the only drug available for the treatment of Pompedisease, a rare metabolic disorder. Its designation as an orphandrug comes from the fact that pharmaceutical companies likeGenzyme would otherwise abandon research of the condition, whichaffects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, but forthe incentives provided by Congress.

The class would have included anyone who bought shares of Genzymebetween October 2007 and November 2009, during which time thecompany consistently expressed optimism about its application fora license to produce the drug Myozyme in a 2000-liter bioreactorinstead of a 160-liter bioreactor. To differentiate the twoprocesses, Genzyme called the drug produced in the larger reactorLumizyme.

But shareholders said the company kept quiet when it sufferedseveral bioreactor failures, and when the FDA advised the companyto make significant changes to its proposed manufacturing processfor Lumizyme.

After the third bioreactor failure, Genzyme publicly attributedthe failures to the outbreak of a rare virus, a contaminationlinked to the manufacturing issues previously identified by theFDA.

And in November 2009, the company issued a public notice advisinghealth care providers that vials of all its drugs were found to becontaminated with foreign particles, including steel and non-latexrubber, also because of problems at its Allston plant.

A 2010 lawsuit by the FDA left Genzyme on the hook for a $175million settlement.

"The allegations set forth in the complaint fail to convey acogent and compelling inference of deceitful intent, or recklessdisregard of the truth, on the part of defendants," Judge JuanTorruella wrote for the three-judge appellate panel. "Scienterhas not been pled, and, accordingly, we affirm the districtcourt's order of dismissal."

Genzye was under no affirmative duty to disclose the bioreactorfailures until it discovered their cause, which took severalmonths, but it did inform the market of its tightening productsupplies, according to the ruling.

"Under these circumstances, where Genzyme kept the market apprisedof supply shortages, we are not compelled to infer that defendantsacted with fraudulent intent by taking the time to investigate,and discover, what was essentially unknown to them," the 36-pageopinion states.

The panel did, however, note its "discomfort" with O'Toole'srefusal to let the shareholders amend their claims.

"We emphatically reiterate that the PSLRA does not require thatorders of dismissal be with prejudice," Torruella wrote,abbreviating Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. "This isparticularly so in light of the fact that the PSLRA is a tooldesigned to curb vexatious litigation, not a mechanism for denyingbona fide claimants their day in court."

Genzyme was bought by Sanofi-Aventis, a French drugmaker, in 2011for $20.1 billion.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Former Employees Support Gender Bias Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Tom Huddleston, Jr., writing for Fortune, reports that an ongoinggender discrimination lawsuit against Goldman Sachs filed fouryears ago by three former female employees now has the support ofseveral additional former employees who allege the financial gianthas a "boy's club" atmosphere where women are mocked and excludedby their male colleagues.

The group is seeking class action status from a federal judge inManhattan in a suit that looks to sue Goldman on behalf of currentand former employees at the bank whose tenures stretch as far backas July 2002. Several former employees filed documents on July 1supporting class certification of the lawsuit, which accusesGoldman of hosting an environment that is "hostile to women."

In a statement sent to multiple news outlets, a Goldman spokesmansaid the filings on July 1 were not a surprise and that they "lackmerit."

One former vice president in the bank's securities division,Denise Shelley, wrote in her letter to the court that femaleemployees at Goldman were often hired based on theirattractiveness and then asked to pitch sales to clients only tolater have their intelligence mocked by male colleagues.Ms. Shelley says such women were referred to as "bimbos" by malecolleagues, and she remembers one time when a new female hire wasmocked for having been a beauty pageant winner.

"The culture that I experienced at Goldman Sachs sexualized womenin a way that made it difficult for us to be taken seriously asprofessional peers and diminished our ability to be fairlyreviewed, compensated, and promoted in comparison to our malepeers," Ms. Shelley wrote in a court filing.

She also claims that women were often excluded from social eventsoutside of work and that, after a rare occasion where she did joinher male colleagues at a bar, she was later called a "party girl"by a managing director at the bank.

Another vice president and trader, Allison Gamba, asserts in herown court filing supporting class certification that Goldmanfrequently passed her over for promotions that went instead tomale colleagues with less impressive qualifications than her own.Ms. Gamba also accuses the bank of holding her pregnancies andmotherhood against her by ceasing to even nominate her forpromotion once she started having children.

Ms. Gamba says she believes that "Goldman Sachs is incapable ofreforming itself to treat its female employees equally," and thatwomen at the bank are often unwilling to formally complain aboutsexual discrimination and harassment because they fear it willdamage their careers.

In addition to seeking certification as a class action, the suitseeks unspecified damages as well as court-imposed injunctionsthat would force Goldman to take action to eliminate gender biasat the bank.

Industry is recalling Ziyad brand Baba Ghanouj and Soup StarterSoup Base from the marketplace because they contain milk andsesame which are not declared on the label. People with anallergy to milk or sesame should not consume the recalled productsdescribed below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk or sesame, do not consume therecalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threateningreaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court---------------------------------------------------------------Hastings Entertainment, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,Amarillo Division, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended April 30, 2014.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' counsel sent theCompany a demand letter dated March 20, 2014 demanding that theBoard of Directors commence an action on behalf of the Companyagainst the Directors. The Board of Directors appointed a SpecialCommittee composed of independent directors to review theplaintiffs' allegations. The Committee has not yet completed itsreview or made any determination as to what action, if any, shouldbe taken in response to those allegations.

On May 9, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed, alleging materialomissions and misstatements in the company's Proxy Statement inviolation of Sections 14 and 20 of the Exchange Act. The action,captioned CV-00114-J-Sarabjeet Singh, individually and on behalfof others similarly situated v. Hastings Entertainment, Inc., JohnH. Marmaduke, Jeffrey G. Shrader, Ann S. Lieff, Frank O. Marrs,Danny W. Gurr, Draw Another Circle, LLC, Hendrix AcquisitionCorp., Joel Weinshanker and National Entertainment CollectiblesAssociation, Inc., was filed in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division. Thelawsuit, which purports to be a class action, seeks an injunctionpreventing consummation of the Merger, rescinding the Merger, ifconsummated, or granting rescissionary damages in an unspecifiedamount, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an awardof costs and expenses.

INTEL CORPORATION: Sued Over Termination of Worker--------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reported that Intel retaliated against anemployee for participating in a sexual harassment investigationagainst a manager, the fired worker claims in court.

The recall involves the Aquatec Fixed Backrest. The AquatecFixed Backrest is an accessory for the Mobile Shower and Toiletcommode and is used for secure patient positioning. The month andyear of manufacture are stamped on the back of product.

The Aquatec Fixed Backrest may become detached from the frame whenan uneven load is applied by the users back to either the top orbottom of the backrest, posing a fall hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidentsor injuries related to the use of these products in Canada.

Approximately 450 backrests have been sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold fromAug. 2013 to April 2014.

Companies:

Importer Invacare Canada LP Mississauga Ontario Canada

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the affectedbackrests and contact the company to have it replaced. Areplacement backrest will be issued at no additional charge.

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims------------------------------------------------------------Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported thatKansas City Southern officers exposed the company to hundreds ofmillions of dollars of losses by "breaches of fiduciary duties andviolations of law," a shareholder claims in a derivative lawsuit.

Bruce Lerner sued 12 company officers in Federal Court.

Kansas City Southern is a holding company with domestic andinternational rail operations in North America. KCS has aconcession from the Mexican government that allows it to operatestrategic routes between Mexico City and Texas.

The lawsuit states: "Defendants improperly touted KCS's businessprospects and issued aggressive financial guidance to demonstrateto the market and to the corporate debt rating agencies inparticular, that the company's business metrics and financialprospects were deserving of an investment grade debt rating. Inparticular, defendants hyped that the company was then on track toachieve during fiscal 2013: (i) 'mid single-digit volume growth,along with mid single-digit pricing [growth]'; (ii) 'revenuegrowth ... higher on a percentage growth basis than 2012'; and(iii) improved 'operating ratio.' The company's guidance wasoverstated because it failed to take into account several negativetrends affecting the company's business, including that KCS'sutility coal volumes and crude oil shipments declined moredrastically than defendants led the market to anticipate, thatcarloads in the company's chemical & petroleum shipments to Mexicodeclined due to operational issues with the company's customers inMexico, that the company's anticipated ramp-up of its Mexican autoshipment business was not advancing at the rate the market was ledto believe as the new plants were not coming on line, and that thecompany's heavily touted efforts to build the Port Arthur crudeoil terminal were riddled with operational difficulties pushingthe positive financial benefits of the expansion effort offfurther into the future."

Lerner claims evidence of the defendants' wrongdoing began toemerge on Jan. 24 this year, when KCS issued a press releaseannouncing disappointing 2013 fourth quarter fiscal results. KCSreported a net income of $113.8 million or $1.03 a share onrevenues of $615.6 million. Lerner said that fell below theprojected net income of $1.10 a share on $618.1 million.

For 2013, net income fell to $3.98 a share, below the $4.05 ashare the investment community had expected based on thedefendants' statements, the complaint states. Also, Lerner claimsthat KCS's operating ratio had increased, even though the marketwas led to believe that it was declining.

Lerner claims KCS officials blamed the poor earnings on a varietyof factors during a conference call. He says some of the excusesincluded a plant shutdown, unplanned plant outages, reducedshipments to another plant, weakness in petroleum shipments andincreased operating expenses.

"Then, on February 18, 2014, the market learned that the lowerhouse of the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill toincrease rail competition in Mexico," the complaint states. "Thislegislation, if passed by Mexico's Senate, would give third-partycompanies access to KCS's currently exclusive freight andpassenger rail networks. The Wall Street Journal, in a February19, 2014 report entitled, 'Railroads and Mexican Government onCollision Course: Kansas City Southern and Grupo Mexico Fight BillThat Would Strip Exclusive Track Rights,' explained that theMexican government had long been dissatisfied with KCS'sperformance under the concession.

"Upon disclosure of the company's true business health and limitedfinancial outlook, KCS's market capitalization plunged by nearly22 percent, erasing over $2.8 billion in value. As a directresult of the individual defendants' wrongdoing, the company isnow the subject of a securities class action lawsuit filed in theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Missourion behalf of investors who purchased KCS shares. The securitiesclass action lawsuit poses the risk of hundreds of millions ofdollars in damages to the company."

Lerner seeks damages, disgorgement of profits and a rulingrequiring KCS to improve its internal structure to protectshareholders, including strengthening the company's disclosurecontrols; strengthening the board's supervision of operations; andallowing shareholders to elect three members to the board.

KENAN TRANSPORT: Removed "Murray-Palmer" Suit to S.D. Florida-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit entitled Murray-Palmer v. KenanTransport, LLC, Case No. CACE 14-009447, was removed from theCircuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and forBroward County, Florida, to the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61496-BB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the Fair LaborStandards Act. Specifically, the Complaint purports to bring aclaim for unpaid overtime and a claim for retaliatory discharge.

Cooper claims he worked without pay at the Staples Center as a"fan relations intern" from Sept. 28 to Nov. 17, 2012.

He claims that Sterling and the Clippers misclassify employees asinterns, to duck their responsibility to pay wages, and do notprovide the training that would make the intern classificationlegal.

"Plaintiff's unpaid work for defendants is part of a broader trendwhere employees are being misclassified as unpaid 'interns' in aneffort by employers to avoid paying wages as required by statelaws and FLSA [the Fair Labor Standards Act]," the complaintstates. "These programs purport to be training programs, butprovide little value to the worker while enriching the employerthrough the provision of free labor. The result is that whilecertain employers save wage expenses, the economy as a wholesuffers from fewer paid job opportunities. Moreover, the economicand moral wellbeing of our nation is compromised due to thefurther marginalization of workers who cannot provide freeservices but rather must accept low wage employment in othersectors, thus foreclosing certain employment options, and indeedentire fields, from the already vulnerable.

"Defendants' failure to pay interns for years runs afoul of basicwage-and-hour laws, including the FLSA and California labor laws,which require that employers pay all of their employees - eventhose who are inexperienced or entry-level - the minimum wage andovertime. The law provides no exemption for interns unless theyare in a vocational training program, and the United StatesDepartment of Labor uses a six-factor test to evaluate whether aworker is a trainee or an employee. A worker is a trainee only ifhe or she receives training similar to what would be given in avocational school or academic educational instruction. Theemployer cannot derive any immediate advantage from the intern'swork or require the intern to do the work of regular employees.'[I]f the interns are engaged in the operations of the employer orare performing productive work (for example, filing, performingother clerical work, or assisting customers), then the fact thatthey may be receiving some benefits in the form of a new skill orimproved work habits will not exclude them from the FLSA's minimumwage and overtime requirements because the employer benefits fromthe interns' work.'"

LinkedIn urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif.,to dismiss the federal class action, saying the users explicitlyconsented to the challenged actions by clicking through a seriesof permission screens.

The company suggested that the class members were perhaps simply"embarrassed" by the repeat invitations they authorized LinkedInto send to their contacts.

The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals,countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do notgive LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses andbroadcast users' persona to hundreds of people."

Koh largely agreed with LinkedIn's claim that the permissionscreens amounted to consent, as a reasonable user would haveunderstood that the site was collecting email addresses from theuser's external email account.

LinkedIn also "clearly discloses" its intention to invite thoseemail contacts to connect to the user via LinkedIn, Koh said inher 39-page ruling, which includes various screen shots ofLinkedIn's sign-up process.

Regarding the state penal code, Koh said the lawsuit fails toexplain how LinkedIn "has circumvented a technical or code-basedbarrier" when it allegedly "tunnel[s] through any open emailprogram on a user's desktop." But Koh said the consent grantedthrough permission screens ends with the first invitation and doesnot necessarily apply to follow-up "reminder emails" -- thepurported spam that class members say damaged their professionalreputations.

"Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented toLinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds thatplaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to thesecond and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote.

"Specifically, the second and third endorsement emails couldinjure users' reputations by allowing contacts to think that theusers are the types of people who spam their contacts or areunable to take the hint that their contacts do not want to jointheir LinkedIn network."

She allowed the class members to pursue their right-of-publicityand unlawful competition claims against LinkedIn over the secondand third reminder emails. She also gave them 30 days to againamend their complaint, finding no "undue delay, bad faith ordilatory motive by plaintiffs, repeated failure to curedeficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn."

LOUISVILLE BEDDING: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Pricing----------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reported that directors of LouisvilleBedding Co. are taking the company private through an unfairprocess at an unfair price of $14.37 a share, shareholders claimin Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.

Phyllis Gustavson hopes to represent a class with misbrandingclaims against Mars Inc. and Mars Chocolate North America LLC.The complaint takes aim at the labels of five Mars products --M&Ms, Twix, dark chocolate Dove, milk chocolate Dove and Snickers-- and says Gustavson has spent more than $25 on these productssince 2008.

But Gustavson says federal regulations state that a nutrient-content claim may only use particular terms defined in FDAregulations. The term "source" is not among these defined termsunless preceded by the modifier "good," according to thecomplaint.

Companies may also not make content claims unless the food productcontains some fixed percentage of the established daily value forthe nutrient in question, the complaint alleges. Gustavson saysthe Dove chocolate bar cannot possibly contain adequate flavanolsto meet these requirements because the FDA has not established arecommended daily value for flavanols.

The claims about how Mars represents the calories in its productsare similar. Gustavson says the packaging label is deceptivebecause the statements are not accompanied by the disclosure,mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, that directsconsumers to consult the full nutrition information panel locatedon the back of the package for further information regarding thelevels of fat and saturated fat contained in the products.

Though the statements refer to a "daily value" for calories,Gustavson says the FDA has not established a daily value forcalories. Even if a daily value for calories did exist, thepercentage statements Mars makes would allegedly still bemisleading because recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend thatindividuals strictly limit the amount of calories they consume inthe form of sugar and fat, both of which are present at highlevels in Mars' products.

The class claims Mars violated California's Unfair CompetitionLaw, its False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal RemediesAct, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., refusedto dismiss any part of the complaint.

In its motion, Mars had claimed that the Federal Food, Drug andCosmetic Act pre-empts the claims regarding flavanol and caloriecontent. It also said that the calorie claims implicate technicaland policy questions that are under active consideration by theFDA and thus are committed to the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.

Gustavson countered that she seeks to enforce only what FDA andthe Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires.

In refusing to dismiss, Judge Koh agreed that the claims "do notseek to impose requirements beyond what federal law requires.'

Mars had also argued that its statement "natural source of cocoa"only means that cocoa is naturally present in the chocolate,without characterizing the level of the flavanol.

But Koh agreed with Gustavson that the word "source" did implythat the nutrient was present at a percentage higher than zero.

"At the very least, stating that a food product is a 'source' of agiven nutrient indicates that the nutrient is present at a levelhigher than zero, and the fact that the manufacturer chooses tonote that its product is a 'source' of that nutrient arguablyimplies that the nutrient is present in substantial quantities,"Koh wrote. "The final [FDA] regulation includes only 'goodsource' as a defined term, the FDA explained, because without themodifier 'good,' the word 'source' would 'not enable the consumerto conclude that the level of nutrient present is less than'high.' This reasoning indicates that the FDA was concerned that'source of' claims would suggest a certain level of nutrients toconsumers."

Though Mars said the FDA is actively considering front-of-packcalorie-related labeling, Koh said this does not present ajurisdictional issue.

That process "is not sufficiently concrete or advanced as towarrant dismissal of plaintiff's calorie claims," the 18-pageruling states.

Gustavson had originally brought her claims against Mars in a 2012action against Wrigley, and Mars pointed out that the court haddismissed a claim regarding serving size in the Wrigley case basedon the FDA's active consideration of the issue.

But Koh said "closer examination of the FDA materials cited bydefendants reveals that the FDA's plans for regulating front-of-package calorie statements in a manner that would affect theoutcome of this case are far less apparent than they were in theWrigley case."

"The FDA's expressions of intent to regulate calorie statementssimilar to those at issue in this case have simply been too vagueand tentative for the court to conclude, as it did in the Wrigleycase, that it was prudent not to interfere with an active andongoing regulatory process," she added.

Mars had not challenged a third prong of Gustavson's complaint,which accuses Mars of failing to identify the ingredient"polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid" by its common name.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Small Leagues Profit Massively, Atty. Argues-----------------------------------------------------------------Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that as studentathletes' class-action antitrust trial against the NCAA headedinto its third week on June 23, 2014, plaintiffs' attorney SethRosenthal argued that even smaller college conferences areprofiting massively from student athletes and pouring that moneyinto ever more extravagant programs.

"It's fair to say there's been an arms race in college sports,"Rosenthal said while questioning Conference USA CommissionerBritton Banowsky.

Banowsky said he wasn't sure what an "arms race" meant, but saidhe generally agreed that, "there hasn't been discipline with theresources."

Banowsky said his conference has done "a better job" of keepingexpenditures in line than others, but he'd like to see revenuefrom athletics directed toward other university programs.

"We've see this growth in expenses," Banowsky said. "As therevenues flow in, instead of capturing those to give to thelibrary it's just plowed back in to the athletic endeavors."

A lot of this revenue growth stems from lucrative televisionbroadcast contracts. Even the smaller Conference USA has seen an$84 million revenue boost from two 6-year agreements with FOX andCBS Sports TV.

"The size of the pie is enormous now for revenue for collegeathletics isn't it?" Rosenthal asked. "You agree the athletes areat least in part responsible for this increase in revenue thatCUSA has enjoyed. Without them there would be no product."

"There is more revenue flowing into the system than there has beenever, and there is significant growth in media revenues," Banowskysaid, adding that without the student athletes, there would benothing to televise.

Still, Banowsky said, most athletic departments in Division Oneschools around the country make no profit, and only a handful areself-supporting.

Led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, college athletesare suing the NCAA for the right to a share in the televisionbroadcast revenue for their names, images and likenesses.

"They might try, but what I'm hearing is funding is very tight,"Banowsky said. "State funding is tight. The ability to continueto raise student service fees for athletics is -- something nopresident wants to travel that path. You've got studentsgraduating in debt and you're asking them to take on more for anathletic fee. I think that would be very difficult for auniversity president to undertake."

Klaus tried to show that if schools were forced to negotiatelicensing agreements with college athletes, schools with lessmoney will have no chance at competing against the bigger programswith more money.

"What will be the effect of ability of Rice and other members tocompete for prospective student athletes in the event that otherschools were negotiating group licenses and paying significantcompensation in those sports?" Klaus asked.

"I doubt Rice would do that. But if other schools out of statewere able to provide compensation above education costs, then I'mcertain it will influence decision-making of the student athletesthat Rice was recruiting," Banowsky replied.

He continued: "If you concentrated all the best players in schoolswith the highest resources, over time it would have a negativecompetitive effect. The teams with the best players would winmore consistently then they do now."

During Rosenthal's cross-examination, Banowsky said he wouldsupport some kind of compensation held in trust that studentathletes can get after graduation, but that it must not be anymore than the cost of attending school.

Rosenthal pushed him on that point.

"There's so much money in the system right now that you believeyou can set up a trust fund without undermining the concept ofamateurism," Rosenthal said.

"I'm an advocate for incentivizing athletes to graduate," Banowskysaid, "So long as it stays within the collegiate model and thefund doesn't exceed the cost of their education."

Dr. Rascher Testifies on Underreport Revenues

In an earlier report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse NewsService, said that, a sports economist testified in the antitrustclass action against the National Collegiate Athletic Associationthat colleges underreport revenue.

Dr. Daniel Rascher helped close out the first week of the closelywatched federal trial in June before U.S. District Judge ClaudiaWilken. Former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon is the leadplaintiff in the case, which accuses the NCAA of forcing thousandsof student athletes to sign away rights to their images, whilecheating them out of their share of television broadcast dollars.

Pointing to the University of Texas, Rascher said the schoolgenerates $109 million every year from its football program buthas just $27 million in expenses.

"What you learn from this is the net surplus is very large," saidRascher, a professor of sports economics at the University of SanFrancisco.

The 69 Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, schools net $1.3 billionin revenue from football alone last year, he added.

Meanwhile "NHL profits are down around $7 million per team,"Rascher said. "The profitability is much higher than theseprofessional NHL clubs."

He also noted other ways that athletic departments boost auniversity's profits. A successful college football or men'sbasketball team, for example, can foster a fanaticism that drivesup application numbers, brings in more tuition dollars, andencourages larger alumni donations. "It's often said the athleticdepartment is the front porch of the university," Rascher said.

Then there are the profits from concessions, merchandise, sportscamps and parking, which Rascher said schools count differently.

A team jersey purchased at a campus bookstore, for example, wouldnot be credited to the athletic department, even though theathletic department technically generates that revenue, he noted."It looks like on paper sometimes that those athletic departmentsare losing money," Rascher said. "It can be millions of dollars ayear, yet they don't show up on financial statements of theathletic department. Instead of 10 percent of schools makingmoney from athletics, which is a phrase the NCAA likes to use,only 10 percent of schools are losing money from athletics."

Rascher also refuted the argument at the forefront of testimonyfrom former CBS executive Neal Pilson that fans watch collegesports primarily to root for the schools, not the players.

"There's a belief out there that fans just root for their almamaters," Rascher said. "I've looked at a couple of differentmeasures of demand. One of them being attendance, anotherratings; the idea being the athletes are a major part of whatmakes a team play well. If fans were just rooting for laundry asJerry Seinfeld said, the quality of the team shouldn't matter thatmuch."

But, he added, "in college football and basketball, when a teamwins, it has a bigger impact on demand, and when a team loses itdrives demand down -- even more than the NFL."

"Fans care more about the winning and losing when they make thedecision in watching a college football game than with the NFL,"he continued.

The trial got heated with the cross-examination of Rascher by NCAAattorney Rohit Singla with Munger, Tolles and Olson. One ofSingla's tactics was to try and have Rascher say that biggerschools with more broadcast revenue will be able to pay athletesmore than schools with less revenue, therefore giving them theadvantage of acquiring the most skilled athletes.

Singla also attacked Rascher's testimony that schools areunderreporting athletic-department revenues. Several times, thecourt reporter had to interrupt Singla's cross-examination toremind men not to talk over each other.

Singla continued to fire off questions, trying to rattle Rascher."You have no idea what volume you think these revenues that arebeing mis-accounted for represent? You have no idea how much itis? You have no idea what the volume represents at the averageschool, do you?" he asked.

Singla also asked Rascher whether he had ever seen an athlete paidroyalties from broadcast earnings, aside from special Tiger Woodsappearances and the Roger Federer v. Rafael Nadal tennis matches."You have never seen royalties paid to any athlete in any sportfrom broadcast revenues, have you?"

"Not that I can think of," Rascher answered.

Then Singla brought up Tonya Harding. "Do you remember the violentincident between Harding and Nancy Kerrigan where Kerrigan wasattacked?"

Rascher said he barely remembered.

"The competition between the two of them was one of the mosthighly watched," Singla said.

Rascher still could not recall a whole lot about the Harding andKerrigan sports rivalry.

"You wouldn't say that because a lot of people tuned in to watchthese two in an ice-skating competition means it's OK to violentlyattack someone," Singla said, to which Rascher replied, "That hasnothing to do with amateurism."

Former CBS Exec Testifies Against Class Action

In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse NewsService, reported that a former CBS executive testified that thepopularity of college sports will take a major hit if theathletes begin getting paid when their games are televised.

"I have a substantial concern that it would change the fabric ofthe sport," said Neal Pilson, who was president of CBS Sports for12 years and is now a sports television consultant with his owncompany.

He was testifying before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken at thefederal trial of an antitrust class action against the NationalCollegiate Athletic Association. Former UCLA basketball playerEdward O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in the case, which accusesthe NCAA of forcing thousands of student athletes to sign awayrights to their images, while cheating them out of their share oftelevision broadcast dollars.

Munger, Tolles & Olson attorney Kelly Klaus represents the NCAA.

Pilson said the public views college athletes differently from thepros -- perceiving them as students and amateurs who play for thelove of the game.

"I think viewers appreciate and enjoy the concept that collegefootball players are playing because they enjoy playing collegefootball," he said. "They volunteer to play it, they compete,they risk injury, they are relatively young and they are amateurs.I am not naive that the public isn't aware of the attention someplayers get, but the public differentiates college sports overprofessional sports for reasons that aren't true for professionalsports. There is an identification with a college or university,and the fact that the players move through the college system.Most only play for one or two years. The loyalty is not to theplayers -- it is to the sport and the institution."

If schools rush to pay for the best athletes, college athleticswould most certainly become more money driven, Pilson said.

"I'm concerned that the recruiting aspect of getting young highschool players to play at certain colleges could be verydistressing," he continued. "If there were no rules, you wouldhave a land rush of agents and big money chasing high schooljuniors and seniors to get them to play for certain schools. Andto get the best players you have to get the best coaches.Salaries for coaches would be driven up. A large number of casualfans around the country would be turned off by the land rush thatwould almost be required if this were to take place. I think it'sa negative and I think it will happen."

The words "name, image and likeness," or NIL, have been used inthe broadcast industry for a long time, but the concept of therights to player's names, images and likenesses is new, Pilsonadded.

"There's a difference between NIL and 'NIL rights,'" he said."While the industry is well aware of NIL, the discussion ofwhether those are NIL 'rights' is a relatively recent phenomena."

In all his years negotiating deals to broadcast sporting events,"I've never been a part of a negotiation where there was adiscussion of the grant, transfer or license of NIL rights,"Pilson added.

Student athletes would no longer be considered amateurs if theyare able to share in television broadcast revenues, Pilsontestified. Noting that he had been watching the U.S. Open thatmorning, Pilson said a young golfer who was identified as anamateur certainly would not have been compensated for having hadhis name and likeness shown on television.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Isaacson hammered away at Pilson in anattempt to have him concede that most people no longer see studentathletes as amateurs.

Isaacson presented a passage from famed University of Alabamacoach Paul "Bear" Bryant's autobiography, which says, "I used togo along with the idea that football players on scholarship were'student-athletes,' which is what the NCAA calls them. Meaning astudent first, an athlete second. We were kidding ourselves,trying to make it more palatable to the academicians. We don'thave to say that and we shouldn't. At the level we play the boyis an athlete first and a student second."

Isaacson also pointed to a Knight Commission survey that said themajority of Americans view college sports more like professionalthan amateur sports.

Pilson said: "Maybe I'm naive, but if we go down the road ofpaying players substantial sums, all will be lost, and we're justdeveloping a cadre of hired guns that will have no link to thecolleges other than showing up for the practices and games."A former NBA TV president Edwin Desser testified for theplaintiffs that, when telecasters negotiate deals to televisegames, they are paying for images and likenesses of theparticipants, and that those images have value.

"You simply cannot show sports events without the benefit ofshowing the players in those events," Desser said. "I still thinkthe appearance of the players and their activities on the field orthe court are things of value. And to the extent that somebody isgiven the legal right to capture that and disseminate it, they aregetting something of value or they wouldn't be paying for it."

CBS Wants Broadcast Contract Away from Public

In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse NewsService, reported that CBS said a federal judge at the helm of theantitrust case against the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation must protect a broadcast contract from publicdisclosure. The network in June filed a motion to intervene inthe class action brought by current and former student athletesagainst the National Collegiate Athletic Association. After aslew of recent settlements, only the antitrust claims led byformer UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon advanced to trial.

O'Bannon claims that the NCAA forced thousands of student-athletesto sign away rights to their images and cheated them out of theirshare of television broadcast dollars. U.S. District Judge ClaudiaWilken will decide whether the NCAA must pay athletes for usingtheir images and likeness in television broadcasts.

CBS noted that the multimedia agreement it and Turner BroadcastingSystem struck with the NCAA is an exhibit in the case and shouldbe sealed from disclosure during the three-week bench trial.

"The nonpublic provisions of the Multi-Media Agreement containcompetitively sensitive information, including content licensingterms and licensing rights obtained for consideration, that arehighly sensitive to CBS," the network said. "CBS competes with anumber of entities to obtain rights to broadcast content, andtakes steps to ensure that the Multi-Media Agreement and thehighly confidential information therein are not disclosed outsideof a group of persons within CBS who have a business reason toknow their contents."

Competitors and third parties will be able to use knowledge of theredacted terms of the tournament contract -- specificallyprovisions containing broadcaster rights and restrictions,promotional inventory, and definitions of the terms "BroadcasterMulti- Sport Package" and "Broadcaster Platform" -- against CBS infuture agreements, the network added.

The NCAA is also trying to keep the contract under wraps, but CBSargued that its interests are different and "NCAA will not'undoubtedly' make all of CBS' arguments."

"CBS operates in a different market than does the NCAA. The natureof CBS' business means it must take into account the potentialeffects of disclosure of confidential information in a mannercompletely separate and apart from the NCAA," the network's motionstates. "CBS must consider different types of potential businesspartners and competitors than the NCAA. This unique knowledge andperspective on CBS' own competitive concerns brings new elementsto the proceeding that warrants intervention."

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Worried About Bidding War for Athletes-----------------------------------------------------------Paying college players from broadcast revenue would start abidding war among school recruiters and shift the focus ofintercollegiate athletics away from education, the SoutheasternConference's associate commissioner Greg Sankey testified onJune 24, 2014, in the NCAA antitrust trial, reports Maria Dinzeoat Courthouse News Service.

Sankey said he could imagine all kinds of scenarios where schoolrecruiters and "overzealous fans" or boosters could make promisesof cash payments and other benefits to prospective players toinfluence their college choice.

"What we would have done is introduce the compensation discussionright into recruiting. The education piece of that discussion inrecruiting would be minimized.

A bidding war ensues quite quickly. That's not the focus of whatwe do now," Sankey said.

In a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, a class ofstudent athletes led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannonclaims they should be allowed to share in the television broadcastrevenue for their names, images and likenesses.

On June 24, 2014, NCAA lawyers argued that a change in the rule toallow student athletes to profit from name, image and likeness useby networks would open the door to third parties, such asboosters, to make promises to recruits that would distract themfrom the real purpose of college.

Sankey said: "I don't assume that whatever promises or paymentsbeing suggested would be directly attached to name, image andlikeness," but "it shifts from a broader consideration of whatuniversity to attend to one that becomes more economically based."

He added: "I'm concerned about how they understand exactly whatthey would be asked to do relative to this name, image andlikeness idea. Who is going to be advising them?"

NCAA attorneys have insisted that paying players will makeDivision One sports less competitive, as schools with more moneyto pump into bigger programs will snap up the best players, givingschools with smaller programs less of a chance at winning.

Plaintiffs' attorney Sathya Gosselin, with Hausfeld LLP, pointedout on cross-examination that schools already use financiallydriven incentives to influence college recruits, and that schoolsin big conferences already dominate on the field.

"You agree there is significant disparity in competition,"Gosselin said.

"No," Sankey replied. "Thirty-two conferences have automaticqualification to tournaments. We've had success at thecompetitive level, but other people have access points."

"The SEC [Southeastern Conference] does not dominate competitionon the field?" Gosselin asked.

"No. We're successful competitively. I don't know what dominateis meant to mean. Others are successful as well. We've won somechampionships. There have been championships we've not won aswell," Sankey said.

Gosselin made sure that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wasaware of the profitability of a conference like Southeastern,pointing out that it made $314 million last year, double itsrevenue in 2008.

Another recurring NCAA argument is the presumed waning of faninterest in college sports if players are paid, as fans will nolonger consider those players to be amateurs.

As the last witness of the day, the NCAA brought in John Dennis,whose survey, "Public Opinion About Paying Student-Athletes,"found 69 percent of respondents were opposed to paying studentathletes, and would watch and attend fewer college football andmen's basketball games if students were paid.

"The public believes that paying student athletes would have anegative impact on the balance of competition in schools," Dennissaid.

Relations between the National Football League and its players hadbeen governed for almost two decades by a Stipulation andSettlement Agreement (SSA) that expired in 2010.

In the final year of the agreement, the 2010 season, the SSAimposed no salary cap, and many players expected a marked increasein player salaries. This increase never occurred, however, andplayers began to suspect that NFL team owners were colluding toavoid bidding wars over free agents.

The parties agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement inJuly 2011, after an 18-week lockout that threatened the year'sseason. But once the new agreement was in place, NFL CommissionerRoger Goodell and several NFL owners made public statements aboutan unofficial 2010 salary cap, which players interpreted as anacknowledgement of a secret salary cap in violation of the SSA.

Players then sought to reopen a 1993 case filed by now-deceaseddefensive end Reggie White, which was one of the legal actionsthat pressured the league into signing the SSA.

A federal judge in Minneapolis shot them down, but the 8th Circuitruled on June 20, 2014, that the players cannot treat the SSA as aclass settlement that can be revisited.

"Without the conceit that the SSA is a bargained-for result of theWhite litigation, the rationale for treating it as a classsettlement begins to fall apart. When a defendant breaches aclass settlement, he vitiates the consideration received by theplaintiffs in exchange for the forfeiture of their legal rights,"Judge Roger Wollman wrote for the three-judge panel. "But when adefendant breaches an independent contract signed with members ofthe class, the legal rights of the class at issue in the lawsuitare not implicated. The mere fact that a class has suffered aharm, seventeen years after they were certified for purposes ofunrelated litigation, does not mean that they may seek redress forthat harm as a class."

Rule 60(b), which allows a court to set aside a final judgment ifit was obtained by misrepresentation, may still offer the playersrelief, the St. Louis-based court ruled.

"Our holding should not be read as in any way expressing a view onthe merits of the association's Rule 60(b) motion," Wollman wrote."'Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional ofcases,' and the association bears a heavy burden in attempting toconvince the District Court that the dismissal was fraudulentlyprocured. We hold only that the association should be given theopportunity to meet this burden."

The Las Vegas woman died on June 30, less than two weeks after herfamily went public with details about Nevada Health Link insuranceexchange enrollment troubles that kept her from treatment inJanuary for an aggressive brain tumor.

Mrs. Rolain was one of about 150 Nevadans suing Nevada Health Linkcontractor Xerox for enrollment mix-ups that left them without thehealth insurance they paid for.

Mrs. Rolain is the first to die of complications from an illnesssaid to have gone untreated for lack of coverage. But observersclose to her case say she may not be the last.

"We are worried that this is the first of many Nevadans who havelife-threatening issues that may end up in such tragiccircumstances. We urge all Nevadans to verify that theirinsurance is active and in place in light of the many problemsthat hundreds, if not thousands, of Nevadans have gone through,"Mrs. Rolain's law firm, Callister, Immerman and Associates, saidin a statement.

Local insurance broker Pat Casale, who in May began to helpMrs. Rolain with her enrollment issues, said he wouldn't besurprised if there were at least another 100 Nevadans facing bothcoverage problems and "urgent and emergent" health care needs.

"I know a few that I have right now (are) in serious need of care-- people who have actually paid premiums and have not receivedcare," Mr. Casale said.

Mrs. Rolain's husband, Robert, said the couple began trying tosign up in November, well ahead of the Dec. 15 deadline forJanuary coverage. After wrestling with repeated sign-up problems,the Rolains bought a plan that took effect in March. But theysaid Xerox staffers miscommunicated the policy's effective date,so they didn't know until May that they had coverage.

Linda Rolain was first diagnosed with a brain tumor in early 2014,after a seizure in late 2013. Robert Rolain said in a June 19news conference at the downtown Las Vegas offices of Callister,Immerman and Associates that his wife's care was delayed formonths because of their insurance troubles.

Robert Rolain alleges his wife's tumor went from treatable inwinter to fatal in spring as the couple fought for coverage.

Linda Rolain was admitted to hospice care in early June.

A Xerox spokesman said in a statement that the company would not"be able to comment on this tragic development."

"This poor lady was told in January that she needed immediateattention," Mr. Casale said. "Her doctor said if she had beguntreatment in March, he might been able to give her quality ofcare, and she might have lived longer. She had no chance becauseof the delay.

"Ms. Rolain should have had coverage in January. (The Rolains) dideverything they could to facilitate the acquisition of a healthplan," Mr. Casale added. "She suffered and she died all becauseof the negligence of a vendor who should not even be in theindustry."

The Silver State Health Insurance Exchange signed a $72 millioncontract with Xerox in 2012 to build Nevada Health Link. Butsoftware glitches kept legions of consumers from enrolling inplans when the health link opened on Oct. 1. The exchangeenrolled just a third of the 118,000 sign-ups it targeted in itsfirst year.

The exchange's board decided in May to replace Xerox as the healthlink's contractor. The exchange will borrow federal eligibilityand enrollment functions in November while it looks for apermanent replacement system for 2015's enrollment session.

Attorney Matthew Callister said on June 19 that he would seekfaster legal action for gravely ill patients, includingLinda Rolain.

"Some of our clients are so ill that if their needs are notaddressed now, it is a matter of life and death," Mr. Callistersaid.

NEVADA YELLOW: Cab Drivers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action------------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the NevadaSupreme Court has ruled in a 4-3 decision that a district courterred in holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not entirelyreplace the existing statutory minimum wage scheme, which exemptstaxicab drivers from its minimum wage provisions.

"We hold that the district court erred because the text of theMinimum Wage Amendment, by clearly setting out some exceptions tothe minimum wage law and not others, supplants the exceptionslisted in NRS 608.250(2)," the June 26 opinion states."Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal order andremand for further proceedings on appellants' minimum wageclaims."

Messrs. Thomas and Craig brought a class action against thetaxicab companies, arguing they and similarly situated taxicabdrivers had not been paid pursuant to constitutional minimum wagerequirements during the course of their employment.

The complaint was based on the Minimum Wage Amendment, which wasproposed by initiative petition and approved and ratified by thevoters in 2004 and 2006, and which raised the state minimum wageto a rate higher than the minimum imposed in Nevada by the LaborCommissioner.

The taxicab companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing thatthe Minimum Wage Amendment did not eliminate the statutoryexception for taxicab drivers under NRS 608.250(2)(e).

Following a hearing, the district court concluded that the MinimumWage Amendment did not repeal NRS 608.250 and that the statutoryexceptions could be harmonized with the constitutional amendment.

"The text of the Minimum Wage Amendment, by enumerating specificexceptions that do not include taxicab drivers, supersedes andsupplants the taxicab driver exception set out in NRS 608.250(2),"the majority opinion states. "We accordingly reverse the districtcourt's dismissal order and remand for further proceedingsconsistent with this opinion."

In his dissent, Justice Parraguirre stated that he would affirmthe district court's order dismissing Thomas' complaint becausethe Amendment was only intended to increase the minimum wageamount.

"We presume that a statute is constitutional, and a party whochallenges the constitutionality of a statute must clearly showits invalidity," the dissenting opinion states.

"We must presume that implied repeal was not intended and theexemptions set forth in NRS 608.250(2) are constitutional," thedissenting opinion states. "Because the Amendment was neitherintended nor understood to do more than raises the minimum wageamount, I would conclude that these presumptions have not beenrebutted and would affirm the district court's order ofdismissal."

Nevada Supreme Court case number: 61681

NEW YORK TIMES: Accused of Selling Subscription Lists to Scammers-----------------------------------------------------------------The New York Times, Dow Jones and Forbes sold their subscriptionlists to scammers who then overcharged customers for renewals ornew orders, and sometimes kept the money without providingsubscriptions at all, a class action claims in New York FederalCourt, according to Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff I. Stephen Rabin sued the media companies onJune 23, 2014, on behalf of people "who have been induced tosubscribe, or renew subscriptions, to The New York Times, Barron'sThe Wall Street Journal, or Forbes Magazine (collectively the'Publications') by Circulation Billing Services and variousrelated entities (collectively, 'CBS' or the 'entities') whichobtained defendants' subscription lists, and other informationconcerning plaintiff and the class members without their consentor knowledge."

The complaint continues: "The entities sent official looking'Notices of Renewal' or 'Notices of New Order' to subscribers ofthe Publications, collected the fees far in excess of thesubscription price, and then, upon information and belief, paidthe subscription price to the publisher of the Publications andkept the excess for themselves, or kept the entire subscriptionamount for themselves and did not provide the subscription paidfor. Defendants were aware of the entities falsely purporting toact on their behalf, but were satisfied that the entities weremaintaining their subscription base at no cost to them, to that,with one exception, they failed to notify their subscribers of thescam."

The one exception is Barron's, which notified its subscribers ofthe scam on Nov. 11, 2013, "years after the scam had been wellknown to Barron's," the complaint states.

Rabin claims that the defendants "have profited from selling theirsubscription list and other information, and continue to selltheir subscription lists and other information to the same sourcesthat perpetrated or caused the scam to occur without notifyingtheir subscribers. Defendants have knowingly permitted the namesof their publications to be used by fraudsters to scam theirsubscribers so they could profit from maintaining their subscriberlists inexpensively and profit from the sale of their subscriptionlists and other information."

Rabin seeks class certification and damages for fraud and deceit,negligence, and business law violations.

NU-WAY TRANSPORTATION: "Loshbough" Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit entitled Loshbough v. NU-WAYTransportation Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01912, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District ofIllinois (Peoria). The Illinois Central District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01262-MMM-JEH to the proceeding.

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Allyson Horn, writing for ABC News, reports that a public meetingwas set to be held on July 2 on Palm Island, in north Queensland,to discuss a class action launched against the State of Queenslandand the Commissioner of Police.

The death of resident Cameron Doomadgee in a police cell in 2004sparked riots on the island and the police station and courthousewere burnt down. Three residents, Lex, Agnes and Cecilia Wotton,have now launched a class action in the Federal Court, allegingthe police response and investigation into the death weredeficient.

The Wottons allege police discriminated against them on the basisof their race, including allowing officers with a conflict ofinterest to take part in the investigation into the death.

Lawyer Stewart Levitt says the meeting will give Palm Islanders achance to voice their thoughts on the court action.

"All the people of Palm Island who were residents there inNovember 2004, who were 93 per cent Indigenous, are defined asbeing members of a group," Mr. Levitt said.

"It's effectively an opportunity for them to find out about thecase, to find out what the case can give to them and to choosewhether they want to be a part of it or not.

"We're essentially alleging that the police failed to dischargenot only their constitutional responsibilities but their statutoryresponsibilities in failing to protect the people of Palm Islandas equal citizens."

RADIOSHACK CORP: State Court Sustains Demurrer in "Brookler"------------------------------------------------------------The Los Angeles Superior Court again sustained RadioshackCorporation's demurrer without leave to amend in a labor suitfiled by Morry Brookler, according to the company's June 10, 2014,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

In April 2004, plaintiff Morry Brookler filed a putative classaction in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that the companyviolated California's wage and hour laws relating to meal and restperiods. The meal period claim was originally certified as a classaction in February 2006. The company filed a Motion forDecertification in August 2007 which was denied. After a favorabledecision by the California Court of Appeals in a similar case,Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the companyfiled a Second Motion for Decertification which was granted inOctober 2008. The plaintiff appealed this ruling and in August2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court'sdecertification order. In September 2010, the company filed aPetition for Review with the California Supreme Court, whichgranted review and placed the case on hold pending a decision inthe Brinker case. In April 2012, the California Supreme Courtissued its decision in Brinker and in June 2012, remanded thecompany's case to the California Court of Appeals withinstructions to vacate its prior order and reconsider its rulingin light of the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. In December2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court'sdecertification of the meal period class. In June 2013, theplaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to assert rest andmeal period as well as off-the-clock and Private Attorneys GeneralAct claims and to add an additional class representative. In July2013 the trial court granted the Motion to Amend and theplaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. In August 2013 thecompany removed the case to federal court. In September 2013 theplaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case back to state court,which was granted in October 2013. In November 2013 the companyfiled a demurrer in state court to all causes of action in theSecond Amended Complaint, which was granted without leave to amendin January 2014.

On February 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ ofMandate with the Court of Appeals seeking immediate relief fromthe trial court's order. On February 11, 2014, the Court ofAppeals notified the trial court and parties of its intent toissue a peremptory Writ of Mandate compelling the trial court tovacate its order granting the demurrer and issue a new orderdenying the demurrer. On February 21, 2014, the trial courtreversed its prior decision and denied the company's demurrer. OnFebruary 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the trialcourt had not followed proper procedure and ordered it to vacateits February 21 order to allow the company an opportunity tooppose the Appellate Court's notice. In April 2014, after furtherbriefing by the parties, the trial court again sustained thecompany's demurrer without leave to amend. It is expected thatplaintiffs will appeal the trial court's order.

RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Orders Additional Proof in "Ordonez" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Californiaissued an order requiring Radioshack Corp. to produce additionalevidence in a suit alleging it violated California's wage and hourlaws, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended May 3, 2014.

In May 2010, the company was named as a defendant in a putativeclass action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging thatthe company violated California's wage and hour laws by notproviding required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay forall time worked, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed topay minimum wage and failed to maintain required records. InSeptember 2010, the company removed the case to the U. S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of California. In July 2012,plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. In January 2013,the court denied, without prejudice, the Motion for ClassCertification as to all claims. In February 2013, plaintiff fileda Motion for Reconsideration of the court's denial of classcertification only with regard to the rest period claim. In April2013, the court ordered that plaintiff could conduct limitedadditional discovery and file a renewed Motion for ClassCertification. Plaintiff filed the renewed motion in July 2013. Ahearing on the motion was held in February 2014, at which time thecourt issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion as tothe rest period claim. However, following oral argument, the courtissued an order requiring the parties to submit supplementalevidence and briefs. In March 2014, the court issued anotherorder requiring the company to produce additional evidence by June9, 2014.

RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Judgment in FLSA Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The motion by Radioshack Corp. for Judgment on Pleadings in alawsuit filed against it over alleged Fair Labor Standards Actviolation has been fully briefed and Radioshack is now awaiting adecision, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended April 30, 2014.

In April 2012, the company was named as a defendant in a putativenationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Actand putative statewide class actions under New York and Ohio statelaws in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District ofOhio, claiming that the company's use of the "fluctuatingworkweek" method to calculate overtime for certain of thecompany's retail store managers violates federal and state lawsbecause the store managers receive bonuses in addition to theirfixed salaries. In June 2012, the company filed a Motion toDismiss the lawsuit. In March 2013, the court issued an opiniongranting the company's motion in part, finding that plaintiffswere not entitled to seek overtime based upon the company's use ofthe "fluctuating workweek" method prior to April 5, 2011, the dateof a U.S. Department of Labor Final Rule ("Final Rule")addressing, among other things, proposed changes to the federal"fluctuating workweek" regulation finding that, based uponstatements in the Final Rule, bonus payments were now incompatiblewith the "fluctuating workweek" method. The court also dismissedone of the named plaintiffs. Following the court's decision, thecompany filed a Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appealand Stay the Action, which the court granted in August 2013.

Shortly thereafter the company filed a Petition for Permission toAppeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whichwas granted. In April 2013, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New Yorkand New Jersey filed similar lawsuits alleging violations of theirrespective state laws. In June 2013, the company filed Motions toDismiss in the New York and New Jersey cases. In November 2013,the court in the New York case granted the company's Motion toDismiss. In December 2013, the plaintiff in the New York casefiled a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.In April 2014, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case voluntarilydismissed the case and filed an opt in notice in the Ohio case.The opening briefs in the New York and Ohio appeals were filed inMarch and April of 2014, respectively. In September 2013, thecourt in the Pennsylvania case ordered the parties to file briefsaddressing whether the company's use of the "fluctuating workweek"method violates Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff filed a Motion forSummary Judgment and the company filed a Motion for Judgment onthe Pleadings. These motions have been fully briefed and thecompany is awaiting a decision by the court.

SAMSUNG: Settles DRAM Price-Fixing Class Action for $310-Mil.-------------------------------------------------------------Samsung, Toshiba and 10 other manufacturers of Dynamic RandomAccess Memory (DRAM) have reached a combined $310.72 million classaction lawsuit settlement over claims they conspired to fix theprice of DRAM data storage chips found in computers and otherdigital devices.

If you purchased a digital device from January 1, 1998 toDecember 31, 2002, you may be eligible to claim at least $10 ormore from the DRAM class action settlement. No proof of purchasenecessary. The more devices purchased, the more money you canclaim. Eligible products include:

The deadline to file a claim is August 1, 2014. More informationabout how to file a claim for the DRAM class action settlement canbe found at tpcl.as/DRAMinfo.

Case Summary

The DRAM price-fixing settlement resolves multiple class actionlawsuits accusing manufacturers of conspiring to fix and raise theprices of DRAM, a form of fast and inexpensive data storageessential to the operation of computers and other digital devices.Plaintiffs accused Toshiba, Samsung, Hitachi, NEC and multipledefendants of entering into price-fixing agreements that resultedin consumers and businesses overpaying for devices containing DRAMfrom January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002.

The defendants deny the allegations but agreed to pay a combined$310,720,000 to resolve the litigation. It's estimated that $200million will be paid to consumers who file a valid claim by theAugust 1, 2014 deadline.

The case is In re: DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486, in theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Potential Award

Consumers and entities that purchased a digital device containingDRAM from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002 can file aclaim to receive at least $10 or more from the DRAM class actionsettlement. The more devices purchased the more money you canclaim. No proof of purchase is necessary, but you may be asked tosupply documentation if the Claims Administrator requests it.

SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Class Action Over Public Day Programs------------------------------------------------------------Carolyn Robbins, writing for MassLive.com, reports that a parentof a student with mental health needs has filed a federal classagainst suit against the city of Springfield and the city's schoolsystem, claiming the student is being "warehoused in a segregatedSpringfield school without educational opportunities ortherapeutic supports."

The suit was filed on June 27 in U.S. District Court by a parentof a 15-year-old student at the Public Day School and theParent/Professional Advocacy League (PPAL), a statewide grassrootsfamily organization that advocates for improved access to servicesfor children with mental health needs and their families.

The suit alleges that the Public Day School, which operates anelementary, middle and high school in three city locations,focuses "on behavior control using drastic methods includingdangerous physical restraints, forced isolation in padded roomsand repeated arrests and suspensions for minor offenses."

The suit said, that in 2013-2014, there were 233 students at thePublic Day School, where the drop-out rate exceeds 41 percent.

Superintendent of Public Schools Daniel J. Warwick called thecomplaint "outrageous."

"These are meritless allegations that are jam-packed withfalsehoods," he said. "I cannot wait for the opportunities to notonly defend our public day programming but also to highlight thesignificant gains which have been realized by the studentsenrolled in these programs."

Mr. Warwick said that the goal of the public day programs is toprovide alternative pathways for students with disabilities to besuccessful within the public school setting. He pointed to recentpublic day school gains in graduation and attendance rates andacademic achievement. He also said that the district's public dayprograms, which are fully approved by the Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education, have been lauded by school districtsthroughout the state as a model of excellence.

Mr. Warwick said the allegations serve as a tremendous disserviceto students with disabilities and their families as it aims toreduce the quality and intensity of the services available tostudents with disabilities, in turn limiting their pathways tosuccess.

"We will not let this or other similar actions by outsidersdistract us from providing quality education and services to allof the children of the citizens of Springfield," he said.

Robert Fleischner, an attorney with the Center for PublicRepresentation, a public interest law firm in Northampton,representing the plaintiffs, said the case claims that students atthe school are being segregated in violation of the Americans WithDisabilities Act which requires public systems provide services inintegrated settings. The nature of the segregation further deniesthem equal educational opportunity, Mr. Fleischner.

Also representing the plaintiffs are The Judge David H. BazelonCenter for Mental Health, in Washington-DC., and BinghamMcCutchen, a Boston law firm.

Students typically assigned to the Public Day Schools have beendiagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder and otherbehavior disorders, Mr. Fleischner said.

Ira Burnim, Judge Bazelon's legal director, said in a pressrelease, said "these students can be educated successfully inSpringfield's neighborhood schools with reasonable modification ofschool programs and appropriate school-based behavioral services."

SUNRISE PROPANE: Settles Class Action Over Deadly Blast for C$23MM------------------------------------------------------------------CBC News reports that a proposed settlement in the class-actionlawsuit related to a deadly explosion at a Toronto Sunrise Propaneplant will see the company pay C$23 million to claimants, with areserve fund of $8 million for affected residents.

"This is a good settlement. Like all settlements, it's acompromise and this is a reasonable compromise," saidHarvin Pitch -- hpitch@teplitskycolson.com -- a lawyer withTeplitsky Colson, a firm involved in the suit. "It was a hard-fought contest and we fought all the way till we had a settlementin place."

Aside from claimants, insurance, administrative and legal expenseswould be paid through the settlement.

The blast at the fuel depot at 62 Murray Rd., in the Keele Streetand Wilson Avenue area, created a massive fireball that could beseen across the city and forced about 12,000 people from theirDownsview neighborhood homes.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants at their locations inPennsylvania. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an opt-in classor "collective" action under the FLSA, the Pennsylvania WagePayment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,in the District Court. The Class Action is Lori A. Smith,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.Superior Energy Resources, LLC, Varischetti Holdings, LP,Varischetti & Sons, Inc., Peter Varischetti, and Does #1 through#10, Case No. 2:13-cv-00640-CB.

Superior is a Pennsylvania limited liability company, servicingseveral key industries to support Marcellus shale development inPennsylvania and parts of New York, Ohio, West Virginia andMaryland. Holdings is a Delaware limited partnership and theparent company of Superior. Sons is a Pennsylvania corporationand is the general partner of Holdings. Peter Varischetti is aPrincipal of Superior.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe, DianeDewey, and Jerry Jankowski sued Sutter Health, a company that ownsand operates hospitals and other health care service providers,alleging that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct in the health careservices industry in Northern California violates federal andstate antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law. Thealleged anticompetitive conduct is Sutter's imposing tyingarrangements that require health plans to include in theirprovider network, and pay supra-competitive rates for, allInpatient Hospital Services that Sutter supplies in five tiedhospital service area markets (the San Francisco, Oakland,Sacramento, Modesto, and Santa Rosa HSAs).

TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Simon Evans, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports thatlegal firm Maurice Blackburn lodged documents in the Federal Courton July 2 to begin a class-action lawsuit against Treasury WineEstates. The legal action is on behalf of more than 600shareholders over what the firm claims was a late disclosure ofheavy writedowns relating to its United States business in 2013.

The lawsuit is being funded by Bentham IMF.

Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan filed the classaction in the Federal Court in Sydney. The documents don'tspecify the size of the claim, although it is expected to run intothe "tens of millions".

Treasury Wine said in a note to the Australian Securities Exchangethat it "strongly denies any and all allegations against it andwill vigorously defend the legal proceeding".

The claim alleges that Treasury, which owns brands includingPenfolds, Rosemount, Lindemans and Wynns, misled the market andbreached its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to thefinancial impact of over-stocked third-party distributors in theUnited States. It is the second class-action lawsuit that hasflowed from Treasury's surprise AUD160 million write-down andprofit warning in July, 2013 which also included a now infamousdestruction of up to AUD35 million worth of low-priced bottledwine that had to be crushed by steamrollers.

Ms. Gilsenan said the action was being brought on behalf ofTreasury shareholders "who lost millions of dollars when thecompany revealed the full extent of the problem in July lastyear". She said the documents didn't specify a figure for thesize of the claim but "we expect and anticipate it would be in thetens of millions".

Ms. Gilsenan said the case would present evidence that Treasuryknew, or should have known by August 17, 2012, that largewritedowns were inevitable and that the market should have beenalerted far earlier than it was.

"It wasn't informed until July, 2013, so shareholders unfairlypaid an inflated price for the stock in the meantime," she said.

A separate class action against Treasury has been pursued byMelbourne lawyer Mark Elliott in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The class-action proceedings are an unwelcome distraction forTreasury, which received a buyout proposal from United Statesprivate equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Robert. The bid, which wasmade public in May, values it at AUD3.1 billion.

Treasury said in its announcement to the ASX that the FederalCourt documents lodged by Maurice Blackburn name the applicant asBrian Jones, who bought 1000 shares in Treasury on September 21,2012 at an average price of AUD4.76 per share. Mr. Jones bringsthe claim on his own behalf and on behalf of other people who haveentered into the litigation funding agreement with Bentham IMF.The claim alleges contraventions of continuous disclosureobligations and alleges misleading and deceptive conduct.

ULTA SALON: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court------------------------------------------------------------Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to face anemployment lawsuit in the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, according to the company's June10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit wasfiled against the company and certain unnamed defendants in statecourt in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, theCompany removed the case to the United States District Court forthe Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, theplaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and theCompany opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for thecourt to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of theproposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempthourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated variousprovisions of the California labor laws and failed to provideplaintiff and members of the proposed class with full mealperiods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensationand premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penaltiesas a result of these alleged practices.

UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action v. Census Bureau-----------------------------------------------------------------On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the CivilRight Act of 1964, a class action lawsuit alleging the U.S. CensusBureau unlawfully screened out approximately 250,000 African-Americans from temporary jobs for the 2010 census was certified bya New York federal court, Outten & Golden LLP and co-counsel saidon July 2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' 61-page opinion rendered onJuly 1 ensures that the unprecedented lawsuit, pursued under TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will go forward as a classaction on behalf of African-American job applicants who weredenied Census Bureau employment because of its criminal backgroundcheck policy.

Filed in April 2010, the lawsuit alleges that in hiring nearly amillion temporary workers, most of whom went door to door seekinginformation from residents, the Census Bureau erectedunreasonable, largely insurmountable, hurdles for applicants witharrest records -- regardless of whether the arrests were decadesold, for minor charges, or led to criminal convictions.

The court designated plaintiffs from Philadelphia, Detroit, andStamford, Conn. as class representatives. The legal team for theplaintiffs, which were appointed as class counsel, includeslawyers from Outten and Golden, and the Center for ConstitutionalRights; Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; CommunityService Society, of New York; Indian Law Resource Center, ofHelena, Mont.; LatinoJustice PRLDEF of New York; Lawyers Committeefor Civil Rights, of Washington, D.C.; and Public CitizenLitigation Group, of Washington, D.C.

Government records show that more than 70 million people in theU.S. have been arrested, but at least 35 percent of all arrestsnationwide never lead to prosecutions or convictions. Nationalstatistics also confirm that African-Americans and Latinos suffera disproportionately high percentage of arrests as compared toWhites.

Most of the job applicants covered by the class action received aform letter from the government, advising them to provide officialcourt records of all arrests within 30 days. The lawsuit allegesthat the "30-day" letter's ambiguity and failure to provide basicinformation such as the arrests for which documentation wasrequested created confusion and set up applicants for non-compliance and rejection.

In July 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commissionadvised the Census Bureau that its criminal background screeningprocess could violate federal law.

Adam Klein, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "We look forward to atrial of this case. The evidence will show the Census Bureauexcluded many people who, on a fair review of their records, metfederal standards for having no relevant criminal history. It'sironic that while the Bureau promoted its desire in 2010 to betterreach communities at risk of being undercounted -- particularlylow-income people of color -- by hiring within those communities,it then discriminated against members of those very communities."

The court also ruled that the class action cannot at this timeinclude Latinos who were screened out as Census Bureau jobapplicants and included in the original complaint. If theplaintiffs are able to identify a suitable Latino classrepresentative, the court said, they may seek to amend the lawsuitand the class certification order.

More information about the case is available atwww.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com

The case is "Evelyn Houser, et al., v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary,U.S. Department of Commerce," No. 1:10-cv-03105-FM, in the U.S.District Court, Southern District of New York.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.